Scans_Daily

Bringing the crack since December 2003

Amazing Spider-Man #673

Peter goes after Strange, demanding to know how Carlie could have uncovered his identity after his spell.

The thing he has to do is give MJ the antidote, since she still has her spider-powers.

Also, Kaine is now scarless, and from the looks of it I'm guessing he's going to be the new Scarlet Spider. I liked what they did with Kaine when they brought him back (before 'killing' him off), but I'm not too crazy about prettifying him and making him some sort of superhero. And why tease the possibility of bringing Ben back?

And Julia Carpenter, the new Madame Web (I still don't understand why they had to kill off the old one and make her the new one) apologizes to Peter about the loss that's to come.

I'd like to remind you that scans_daily is a feminist community. As such, jokes that are about violence towards women or female characters, and jokes about fridging are not welcome here. You are welcome to not like the character, but not to joke or support violence against women or female characters.

M*A*S*H. That's another commonly-known pop culture reference, at least here in the US. That episode was a seminal, huge event--another major character being written out of one of the highest rated television series of all time.

We are fans of pop culture, and often speak in terms of quotes, references, and subtext. If someone doesn't get the reference, is it our job to spell out the reference and educate people on the context? Or are references just verboten now, at the risk that what we say will be taken out of context by those not familiar with the same pop culture?

Was I being unclear? Quotes and pop culture references aren't the problem here. How they are used is. If you use quotes and pop culture references to joke about fridging a female character, then we have a problem. If you do not, carry on.

If references are now forbidden for fear of people taking them literally, then by that logic, no one's allowed to say "fridged" anymore either, because, since it references a violent act against a female character, that could be taken as advocating violence against women by those who either haven't heard the term on the internet or read the original story in Green Lantern.

Either way, fridging is a violent act against a female character and you’re using it in the exact same manner (actually, you’re using it in a much broader context, meaning “any female character death” rather than its original intended usage of “any female character death used to motivate a male character”). Why exactly is referencing it as pop culture shorthand for death acceptable, while other pop culture shorthand references to writing a character out of a storyline awkwardly through death unacceptable?

But context matters, and in light of The Big Two's zeal for torturing and killing female characters for shits and giggles... jokes from fans along the lines of haw haw she's as good as dead just really aren't that fucking funny.

You aren't laughing at misogynists when you write stuff like that. You're laughing with them.

Please stop. There are better ways to complain about badly written/drawn characters in fiction.

Once again, I am re-iterating the rule for you: do not advocate for violence against women or female characters. We are not talking about disallowing the term fridging or fridged or discussion of fridging. We are talking about not advocating for violence against women or female characters. That is not up for discussion

Erm...it sounds an awful lot like you're just trying over and over again to tell him what he wrote, and that he's not allowed to think that any interpretation but yours is valid. Remember, just having authority doesn't automatically make your opinion more 'right' than anyone else's.

It's a reference to an in-joke about a fictional MALE character inside a fictional universe created as a gigantic joke within ANOTHER fictional universe, to make a snide metafictional comment about a completely unrelated character in yet a third fictional universe. Pretty sure that just advocates watching a very good episode of the The Simpsons, Ma'am, not violence against women.

Not to mention that 'Died' isn't at all the same as 'Was Killed' 'Suffered Violent Death', etc. It refers to...dying, a process that by hook or by crook happens to everyone, real or fictional, and doesn't always involve violence and/or the alteration of an equivalent male character's mood.

Additionally, what you're doing here? Really invalidates the idea of having Mods on the comm in the first place, as you're wasting your time policing a comment which only you have found offensive and which numerous people are saying is *not* offensive, not just the original poster. I've written offensive things on the 'net before - here and elsewhere, I won't deny it - but I've always stood down and apologised when I recognised that I was in the wrong.

And most notably, my comments were always flagged by Mods when someone other than the Mod - or numerous someones - were actually complaining about and feeling hurt about it. What you're doing here is, on a tiny scale, exactly the same as throwing tear gas at peaceful protestors. A waste of time and energy, and self-defeating.

I'm an English Lit. Student. I could spend hours and hours carefully detailing the different aspects of how wrong you are, Ma'am. Or...you could stop being angry over nothing, apologise to thehefner and mercia for an innocent mistake that anyone could have made, and go about looking for comments that people are actually complaining about and finding offensive.

Or...you could freeze the thread without warning again/get unreasonably angry at me for trying to reason with you/suspend me/ban me/do something else that's not reasonable. However, as you're a mod, I'd like to think you know better than that.

I didn't like the funny ha-ha death jokes, either. In fact, I was the one who asked salinea to do something about it.

But thanks for treating me like I'm invisible, using a belittling tone with a woman mod, and dragging out your English degree in order to more effectively put both the little ladies in our proper places.

Gosh, I'm so sorry. I shouldn't have treated you as invisible. You're clearly the offended party here, and I should have taken the issue directly to you, when you posted your original...that is, when you first responded to thehefner...I mean, let me just pull up that original reply of yours...um.

Oh, wait...you didn't actually reply to thehefner. Yes, you replied to salinea, but you'll note that I'm defending the Simpsons reference, which, again isn't at all inherently sexist either in its original context or in the context of talking about a hypothetical death with no violence implied. If you don't fight the battle yourself instead of hiding behind a mod, why is it a surprise to you that I unwittingly treated you as 'invisible'?

Frankly, I couldn't care less what sex you are when I argue that you're wrong. The fact that you even started this long, arduous chain of replies is in itself proof that the definition of 'sexism' on this comm is largely hypocritical - you're pulling out the "THAT'S SEXIST" argument to attack a humorous comment referring to a Spider-Man character whose very existence and creation are in themselves fifty times more inherently sexist than that comment.

Additionally, you haven't really addressed the above-stated fact that there are more people arguing AGAINST your point than FOR it, and that you might - perhaps - need to get off your high horse and recognise that you're wrong, or at least that no matter who is wrong or right, you're blowing the issue out of proportion.

Do feel free to again interpret my attempts at being polite as 'belittling'. Because as we all know, when a debater asks their opponent to be reasonable and refers to them with a respectful 'Ma'am' or 'Sir', they really wants the opponent to feel belittled.

I'm not telling the_hefner what was his intent when he wrote it; I was repeatedly correcting him when he attributed our moderation to him using a pop culture reference with a quote. Many interpretations are valid, but I think ours definitely count. Remember also that we are 6 moderators behind the scene, and that most of our sanctioning (as it was the case here) is done by consensus, so it's not like it's my random interpretation, it's one we agreed on; which helps us having a reasonable faith that it is valid.

In case we were unclear in our clarification earlier : even though this is a quote/pop culture reference, by using it in this context against a female character whose narrative role is that of a love interest, who is pretty unpopular in fandom and has been subjected to extreme amounts of bashing and occasional actual wishes for killing, long term transformations into a spider, and was, in this very post, also called by various posters "hysterical", "harpy" and a "uppity bitch"; we have judged that it participates to a disturbing and sexist atmosphere that does not fit scans_daily's ethos and we politely asked people to be more careful about such things. You'll notice that we did so with a Mod Note, which is to say, a kind of sanction which offers no penalty at all to the posters, it only serves as information and reminder of the nature of the rules of the community.

It's nice of you to be concerned about time wasted for us, but this comment is hardly helpful in this regard. In any case, our time is our own, and I would not consider wasted in this case.

Also, you seem unaware that we were actually acting at the behest of someone's request who felt uncomfortable by those jokes. (The complaint being an open comment in this very post as well, you should be able to find it for yourself).

However, as a result of your belligerence, rudeness, baiting, grandstanding and passive-aggressiveness towards the mods and - especially - towards another member in your answers to cleome45, and considering this is not the first you post problematic things, the mod team has decided to ban you from scans_daily permanently.

Less directed towards this example, which I don't really have an opinion on, and more towards the boards in general- that seems like an odd ruling. Given that A) Scans Daily exists to discuss comics, B) Superhero comics are a major genre of comics C) Superhero comics frequently involve violence and D) as a feminist/women-friendly community, Scans Daily tends to focus more on female characters than other boards might, I don't want to end up in a situation where I express approval of (f'r example) Sin being beat down at the climax of an arc and get called out for supporting violence against a female character.

I don't want to end up in a situation where I express approval of (f'r example) Sin being beat down at the climax of an arc and get called out for supporting violence against a female character.There's a pretty large difference between joking about a love interest getting killed and expressing approval when a mass murderer villain gets a beat down. We are able to take context into consideration, so don't worry about this.

I'd like to remind you that scans_daily is a feminist community. As such, jokes that are about violence towards women or female characters, and jokes about fridging are not welcome here. You are welcome to not like the character, but not to joke or support violence against women or female characters.

... It's a Simpsons quote. It's... a bloody Simpsons quote. A commonly referenced episode that's become pop culture shorthand--at least in the States. It's a reference to a character who has outstayed their welcome and was awkwardly removed from the storyline.

All right, I understand that not everyone's seen the episode, and to anyone who actually was offended, to THEM ALONE I apologize and will strive to be more careful and thoughtful in the future. If I quote anything that I feel might be mistaken by those who don't know the context, then I shall reference it accordingly. How's that?

A bloobloobloo! You can go literally anywhere else on the internet and be edgy neckbeard funny. It is not one ounce of a tragedy that this kind of attention is paid to these matters in this one single solitary space.

I understand that, it's what you said initially. I just don't know how to respond, as I can't imagine anyone has a particularly significant reason for leaving a comment at any given time, yourself included.

I'd like to remind you that scans_daily is a feminist community. As such, jokes that are about violence towards women or female characters, and jokes about fridging are not welcome here. You are welcome to not like the character, but not to joke or support violence against women or female characters.

Can you imagine a story about an ex with a symbiont obsessed over her ex, only she's actually over him and wants to put it well behind her, the symbiont keeps trying to get them back together, no-one believes her when she says it's all the symbiont and she's over him, not even him, and she *hates* it?

(When the symbiont isn't being all stalker-y they can get along fine, have fun, fight crime, then it sees something that reminds it of *him*...)

I'd like to remind you that scans_daily is a feminist community. As such, jokes that are about violence towards women or female characters, and jokes about fridging are not welcome here. You are welcome to not like the character, but not to joke or support violence against women or female characters.

Unfortunately, given the scenario, it appeared to be a perfect example to cite of a pop-culutre favourite series with an unpopular, creators-darling, insert-character being clumsily removed when their unpopularity becomes clear. For future reference, would it have been acceptable to use the comparison without the death bit at the end, or should I assume that it will be inferred?

All references aren't perfectly transparent, if it touches on a sensitive subject, be a bit more careful about how obvious you are with the reference, and to express you intent - and especially the target of your intent as if it is meant as a criticism of creators - clearly enough. Also in this case the unpopular character has been subject to a whole lot of bashing, some of it pretty disturbing, in the community, so that's part of why we were more sensitive to it. silverzeo, who made the comment we directly Moded in this case (note: everyone else received an addendum because we wanted people to be aware of the decision as we feel this has been a widespread problem in most ASM post), actually used a reference to a "fridge" in their joke (but since deleted their comment after Moderation (*sighs*)) which is what made us decide it was going too far.

So I'm not sure what I can tell you about using the comparison without the death bit - I guess it works, yes. But I hope that clarifies our intent when we launched all those Mod Notes, and thus how you can avoid this problem in the future?

I've always been fairly indifferent to Carlie because I didn't view her as important. Too new and too unpopular. So I didn't see a need to get attached or angry when we saw her. Just a kind of sigh.

All that being said, she had every right in the world to call Peter out on this. He deserved that. It's hard to see her not returning at some point because she knows but the question remains on what do you do? She can't be a love interest anymore.

Also, I'm glad the psychic blindspot is gone. That thing was way too convoluted.

Did she? Yes, he kept something from her, something important, but his reason for doing so was the usual, and fairly justifiable, one of superhero secret identities. He didn't do it to hurt her, or to spite her, but to try and keep her safer than she might well be if she knew. He certainly didn't do it to make his life easier.

I'd say it was comparable to certain real life examples like secret agents not being able to tell their family what they do for a living.

Mary Jane told Peter earlier in Slott's run to come forward with Carlie.

What really upsets her is she's just called him out as Spidey and he is still lying to her face. She has major trust issues and from her perspective, the entire relationship was a lie. And he's insulting her and her intelligence by standing there and denying it.

And if he really cared about her, he would have chased after her instead of going to Dr. Strange and saying "What the hell, man?!"

(Again, the reason I never cared about Carlie was because it was clear from the beginning that she wasn't important. Just a distraction to create this eventual drama.)

There were a lot of problems with the Peter/Carlie relationship. Not just the reader perception of it.

On paper (not being punny with that), they would seem like a good match. They're both smart, driven people who try to do the right thing.

But in practice, things seemed off. It's more like we were told how good they would be rather than seeing how good they would be. Carlie has major trust issues and Peter has a hard time opening up. Their chemistry seemed off.

Dan Slott knows how to write good chemistry between characters. Look at the way he writes Peter and MJ. But the Peter/Carlie thing was just... off...

Also, it could be he's trying to reinforce the "don't remember" spell, which will actively cause anyone who is putting the truth together to prefer an option which means he's NOT Spider-Man, so she'd be more liable to believe a half-baked prevarication (since he had not, as far as he was aware at the time, broken the terms of the spell) than the actual truth. If the spell was in effect his excuse might well have worked.

No, he admits it eventually. She doesn't give him chance to explain himself once he admits it, nor does she even have the remotest understanding of WHY he wouldn't want her to be involved in that part of his life. She just gets hysterical and starts making rather ridiculous assumptions about him and his life.

As a bottom rule, if you have trouble thinking of anyway to say something without sounding sexist, then it's probably a clue that what you want to say is sexist, and then it's probably best left unsaid.

In this instance, the biggest problem is that "women are irrational and emotionally unstable creatures who overreact without grounds to what men do and say" is one of the big, on going idea that is used to undermine women; and "hysterical" is exactly the sort of word that has been used to do so (connecting irrationality and emotional instability to having a female body, pretty literally).

"Melodramatic" as used by shadowpsykie, "hyperbolic", or "outrageous" while playing into the same stereotype have the benefit of not being semantically gendered.

Well, I don't see 'hysterical' as particularly sexist in this case, as Carlie is acting rather intensely - but as a male I sometimes overlook the subtext in these words.

I'd be more inclined to consider 'melodramatic' sexist, especially considering the genre of fifties women's films that so defined that particular image (although I think 'melodramatic' is actually more appropriate here, as that is how she's acting). But I would say 'hyperbolic' or 'outrageous' come close, but don't quite cover the definition of 'hysterical'.

And I don't know... sometimes my thoughts on these things are a little unclear. But it seems to me, if we take in account all the words that men have used to demean or undermine women and how much they are apart of our daily vocabulary, it leaves a very limited field of words (in basic vocabulary that is, of course there's a lot of synonyms, but also I'm not a native speaker).

Again, if there is no way to say something without it being problematic, then it's probably best left unsaid (at least on scans_daily). We are not going to allow words we view as problematic to be used simply because you can't think of any other way to say it. Yes, it is tougher on non native speakers - I am one myself, so it's not like I don't sympathize - but we're also indulgent in terms of sanctions (in case of truely harmful vocabulary, not "mod note" material like "hysterical") if we have good reason to think you don't know better because of lack of language savviness.

I was wondering about this too, but the sexism comes from the origin of the word meaning "of the womb". Swiped from Wikipedia (but confirmed on real websites)"In the Western world, until the seventeenth century, hysteria referred to a medical condition thought to be particular to women and caused by disturbances of the uterus (from the Greek ὑστέρα "hystera" = uterus"

Whilst I understand the reasons, I don't see hysterical as a particularly gendered word anymore as I frequently use it in the context of humour- and I see it as applicable to both men and women in heightened emotional states.

However, I respect the ethos of the community and will avoid using it- but I think it a little unnecessary as more people using the correct terminology (because it wasn't a gendered word in the first place) can disassociate connotations.

Ha. I'm taking a psychology class right now and one of our recent chapters talked about that. The word hystera is Greek for uterus and like you said, that's why they named it hysteria. That's also why cutting out the uterus is called a hysterectomy. The more you know, I guess. :p

Women are a lot more likely than men to be described as hysterical. Women are a lot more likely to be told 'calm down dear'. Women are more likely to be described as getting all emotional and unreasonable.

There's a huuuuge amount of men(and some women) who consider that only MEN can use logic, and women are only capable of reacting emotionally, because of hormones and periods and tiny lady brains. So describing an excited, angry woman as hysterical taps into that whole vast aspect of dismissing women's anger because their feelings aren't considered valid.

Hysterical as in funny is a different ballgame, though - I really doubt anyone would object if you said you found Amanda Connor's art hysterically funny.

I get you (and the calm down dear reference... I'd definitely agree with that one). I've not heard hysterical used that way in a long while. The fact that it can be invalidating I can get behind, especially with context. I still feel it can be used to describe a unspecific gendered state of mind with careful use, but I appreciate the clarification on the issue.

You are putting me in a position to defend a character I do not actually care about. She's not a love interest created by Lee/Ditko/Romita (like Gwen and MJ) and she also isn't very popular (like Felicia was)

But notice that the first thing he says after he admits it is "How did you figure it out?" He's more concerned with his secret instead of actually feeling anything for her. It makes him come across pretty badly.

Because he asked that question, she went into a train of thought that made her question EVERYTHING they had done together.

But notice that the first thing he says after he admits it is "How did you figure it out?" He's more concerned with his secret instead of actually feeling anything for her. It makes him come across pretty badly.

There's precedent. After Mary Jane said she knew (an issue or two later) Peter thought to himself: "How do I convince Mary Jane she's wrong about me being Spider-Man?"

my bad, sorry not my intent at all, knew i was gambling with that word, was trying to think of a word that worked without sounding sexist.... i should have just stuck with Melodramatic... its just, that last panel of her was so jarring in that it felt inconsitent with the others.

Carlie really, really doesn't get Peter, does she? It's utterly, utterly strawmannish of her to declare 'OMG, you're Spider-Man because you learned how to use your powers so fast!!' - Did she not see Mary Jane, or was she too busy being rubbish and turning into a giant spider? Or does she not understand that SOME people adapt better to certain new things than they do others?

Fortunately, I think most of us don't get her either, and can happily say good fucking riddance. Show her some respect? No thanks.

If Carlie mattered to Peter, he could have stopped her. Now that she knows, he could have told her about the Jackal, and that alone would have been enough to convince Carlie that not knowing would have been safer.

You know Carlie, for that I won't even use my icon of you. Just sad that Peter's gone back to acting like a douche.

That said: "[Spider-Man's] a suit you put on to be like the rest of us". Oh please tell me that's just her feeling angry and betrayed and not something Slott's actually going for. It didn't fit Superman when Bill said it, it doesn't fit Spider when Carlie does. Maybe Batman, but I am not opening that can of worms.

I'm reminded instantly of the 1990s Valentine's Day special in which MJ - reacting to Peter's statement of 'Cool Guys Like Me' in quantifying some advice he gave to a nerd on-campus - gets his old horn rims and sweater vest out of their chest-of-drawers and reminds him that she married 'Peter Parker, the shy nerd who lived with his aunt'.

If Slott is trying to use Cooper as the voice of truth when she says 'Parker is just the mask', then he's just as much an idiot as she is. However, it looks more like he's just using that to demonstrate how utterly wrong for Peter she was all along.

If only he actually knew how to write Peter Parker, then maybe there'd be some hope for this title...

If Slott is trying to use Cooper as the voice of truth when she says 'Parker is just the mask', then he's just as much an idiot as she is.

Well, it is like that line in Kill Bill Vol. 2: "Clark Kent is Superman's critique of the whole human race." The audience isn't sure if that is Quentin Tarantino's own opinion of Superman or not, but they are sure it isn't accurate (at least since 1986).

In the last ish, didn't MJ basically say the opposite - that Pete could save them all because he was Peter Parker, not just Spidey, and that he could science-nerd his way out of the problem?

I choose to believe that this is therefore not Voice-of-God, but instead proof that Carlie is certainly not yet at the stage where she can get Peter the way MJ does. (In her defense, it doesn't help that for much of the time she's been dating him his actual alterego seems to have been Jerk-From-a-Jock-Movie-Man).

"...If Slott is trying to use Cooper as the voice of truth when she says 'Parker is just the mask', then he's just as much an idiot as she is..."

I don't really know the writer's intent, but it's also possible to read that scene as Carlie thinking that if Peter's this awesome hero whom she's admired all this time, she no longer feels like she can ever be his/their equal.

Aaaand here it is, the biggest problem with Carlie Cooper. People want her gone because she's a poorly written character, but if you make her such a GREAT AWESOMESAUCE GIRLFRIEND in-universe, the moment you do something like this, you're going to make everyone realize that she's in the right and our lovable protagonist is a perennial fuck-up and a giant insensitive douchebag. And I'm not sure that's a personality audiences are supposed to associate with Peter Parker.

Except Peter has perfectly valid reasons not to tell her he's Spider-Man. It's an old chestnut, but the 'villains will hurt you to get to me' line is pretty on the mark here. I mean, Hell, she could've been dangerously hurt and not just humiliated by ending up nude in public with this story, and that's just because of some whacko turning everyone into spiders. If he told her, it opens up the door for everyone going after her or whatever, as per usual. Of course, the potential for that is still here.

And she's only in the right if you actually bought in to Slott's rather pathetic attempts to make her an awesome girlfriend; As it is, roller-derby's cooler when Ellen Page is doing it, and the tattoo stuff was a joke. Most fans seem to take every approach they've tried with her as a desperate, straw-clutching attempt to make her cool and likeable and someone worth keeping around. As it is, she's justifiably right in being angry about Peter lying to her, but you'd think she'd be more understanding about WHY he's lying.

Carlie is being unfair here. Now, it's understandable why she'd react this way...but given his life history, it's really not surprising at all that Peter would keep his secret. I mean, they talk about the old Parker Luck...but really, compared to his friends, Peter is the luckiest guy around. I mean, DAMN.

How the hell does the Jackal still know it? I dunno how this is JUST coming to me, but per the mystic mumbo jumbo which was still in tact back when Spider-Island started, he could not have possibly known. I mean freakin' NORMAN OSBORN doesn't know any more, and him knowing used to be the only thing that made him a legitimately threatening villain. God damn is that a plot hole big enough to drive a truck through.

And Norman wouldn't have several hideouts with the walls full of words like - "Kill the Spider. Kill the Parker. Kill the Spider. Peter, Peter, Peter... maybe I'll kill you with a parking meter?" - scrawled on them with his fingernails?

Also, everyone who put it on their facebook page or diary when Peter first unmasked himself also knows?

A facebook pic for sure would do that, but someone would have to go back looking for that. Just having something written like "Peter Parker is Spider-Man" wouldn't work.

According to this to break the spell Peter either has to be unmasked or unmask himself to someone. He hasn't done that with Osborn. However, the Jackal has what, video footage of his cloning technique, Peter's DNA, Ben Reilly, Kaine, Spidercide and several other stupid things to fall back on that could be the cause. I don't like it either but at least with the Jackal there are a lot of easy excuses as to why he remembers.

Bet you a wooden nickel against all the gold in Fort Knox that the video of Peter's unmasking landed on youtube the exact moment someone's smartphone got through the gazillion simultaneous uploading attempts. So, if Jackal's stuff is exempt from the spell then why isn't stuff like that?

See, now that would be an awesome SIDE ARC for a well written Spider-Man story. Unfortunately, look what we have. We have me trying to solve how the hell the current storyline works and you coming up with the next Parker Luck fiasco.

Dear Marvel - plz credit us.

Seriously though, my guess is that Iron Man or someone had the video pulled like a lot of companies do with copyright shit. You Tube pulls videos left and right these days if they are told to and I could see Spidey's unmasking being just such a thing. Although that would mean there are a lot of DVRs out there that spell Peter Parker's eventual doom doom doom doomy doom doom.

But the magic-crap previously in place thanks to Strange should, as it seems, turn anything indicating 'Peter Parker = Spider-Man' and stuff like that as mumbo-jumbo, right?

Unless we're saying that Jackal figured it out again thanks to Peter being dumb enough to talk about his 'new' powers on the internet, which is impossible, I think, in terms of the storyline's progression.

It's a visual, not verbal. My guess would be that the Jackal has video footage of his experiments, plus all of his Ben Reilly and Kaine stuff. With the dna, experiments and the like lying around, it would have been impossible for the Jackal not to have something of Peter or Ben or Kaine (all the same person visually) and if someone that looks like peter having spider powers would trigger the spell to be broken, then the jackal has enough of his own creations that could trigger that.

Thing is, under the specific terms of the hoojoo that wouldn't matter. He could have a thousand Parker clones with spider powers and he wouldn't be able to figure it out, because as shown in this issue, the only way anyone could find out his identity was if Pete intentionally revealed it.

Yeah, but he's got that due to the clones. He's got to have footage of Peter unmasking or even Ben Reilly thinking he's Spider-Man saying "I AM SPIDER-MAN"

My personal thought is it goes like this.

"Hmmm. What to watch tonight? Porn. Gay Porn. Dwarf Porn. Furrie Porn. Wait what's this? "Peter Parker/Ben Reilly/Spider-Man footage #235. Nyahahahaha! How could I have forgotten this video? It must be all these men having a three way! Perhaps I can use Spider-Man's homosexual love of Peter Parker against him in some way!"

Well, it was established at one point (I couldn't quote the issue number to you) that people remember Spider-Man publicly unmasking during Civil War. They just don't remember what the face was. So I'm pretty sure those DVRs have been checked!

I think working on post-OMD Spidey is just melting Dan Slott's formerly fine sense of continuity.

Agreed. Hell, between this and the DC relaunch I have a hard time knowing what the hell actually happened and what didn't in continuity.

Maybe it's a big blur over Spidey's face? But if that's the case how did the internet thing work? Maybe magic doesn't work on the internet? Quick Spidey - look up your marriage to MJ!

At least with jackal he can look back and go "Who did I clone Ben and Kaine from" and have some sort of record that can be traced back to Peter. I'm sure that we can find something that is plausible in that whole spider-cloning history that would jog his memory.

Of course Kaine remembers, right? And jackal had kaine under his control for a bit in Spider-Island. Maybe that's how?

Could be. But from how the whole thing was done in... whatever issue it was, only people inside the Magic Bubble (Pete and MJ) were supposed to remember the secret. Which means, in theory, Kaine wouldn't. Even though he could look in a mirror and... guh, brain hurty.

Haha I'm actually using the clones as part of my fan-wank for why Jackal can know. It's a pretty common trope in stories with mass effect magical spells that there's usually some kind of loop hole, so I'm just gonna go with someone having exact knowledge that Ben Reilly=Scarlet Spider/Spiderman for a time and Ben Reilly=Peter Parker clone makes them immune to the spell.

Not directly, no.....but most of them happened because of association with Peter and Spiderman. How many people were duped into the Hobgoblin business who all had direct connections to Peter and Spiderman? Almost all of them are just one step away and were part of the domino chain that he starts. I mean, he didn't drive Betty crazy, but Betty went crazy because of all the spiderman-related craziness in her life.

I didn't even include the number of times Mary Jane was a target or people near Peter were put in danger because a villain knew that Peter himself had a relationship of sorts with Spiderman. How many times has a villain sought him out because he was Spidey's unofficial photographer?

Point being: Peter's not just being cautious, he's got stacks of police report blotters to remind him of why being associated with Spiderman is a dangerous thing and why revealing that secret is not something done lightly. It's not like revealing you don't like onions, tattoos or circumcision. :)

But that's the disconnect I was talking about. Readers don't see her as awesome, but in-universe, everybody does. Even the ex fawns over her and thinks she's hot shit wrapped in gold foil. So when you've got this supposedly picture perfect character being betrayed and wronged, you've got to narratively bend over backwards to justify why she deserves it.

Consequently, why I've never been down with the old "I can't tell you because DANGER!" excuse is because the underlying implication of that is "I can't tell you because I don't trust you enough not to blab." It's a good reason not to have the whole world know, or not to have your villains know, but it's not a good enough reason not to tell the person you're sharing a life with, unless you just plain don't trust them to keep the secret. And finding out that your loved one doesn't trust you, no matter how right the decision is, can be very hurtful, which is what I interpreted Carlie's reaction to be.

I also find it insane to start a serious relationship with someone and hiding the fact that there's a potential life-threatening danger to either one of you. As you say, the potential is still there, and it's incredibly unethical to rob someone the opportunity to weigh in all the facts before they walk into a situation. Yeah, I understand that every superhero ever have this dilemma: "Al I want is a normal liiiiife." But it's impossible for me to get behind justifying the secrecy. That's why we appreciate the supportive love interests who do know, like how MJ and Lois used to be. Which is not to say I want them all to have this dynamic. I'm just saying that when a hero goes down this total secrecy route, you have to take the douchiness of it into account, and in this case, with Peter Parker and Carlie, I find the whole thing very misguided.

Agreed. Also, in this particular instance, Peter really had ZERO reason to lie to Carlie. In the first place, she's a cop. A forensic scientist, yes, but a cop just the same. If the question was Peter was trying to protect Carlie, she at least supposedly has a fighting chance in that she supposedly has training to protect herself (although a lot of good it did her against the White Rabbit). In fact, her being a member of the NYPD already put her in a high risk category. What's more, she actually LIKED Spider-Man and considered him her best friend. After all, she DID get a tattoo of him, told Peter she considered Spidey one of the good guys, and was estatic when Peter told her he was Spidey's "gadget guy." So all the traditional reasons for the "I can't tell her I'm Spider-Man because that would put her in danger" didn't really apply in this case. What it really showed that, given MJ's warning about how he needed to tell her sooner or later and his saying "I want her to love me as plain old Peter Parker" back in ASM #652, and given that he's more broken up over how Carlie found out rather than her dumping him, it pretty much suggests that he really didn't love her all that much to begin with.

Normally, yes. But in this case, Spidey, being an Avenger, isn't exactly wanted by the cops at this point. But even taking that into account, Carlie was already an ally to Spider-Man and considered him a friend and "one of the good guys." After all, that was the reason why she didn't turn Captain Watanabee in when she found out she was the Wraith, so that in itself was a hint to Peter that he, if he was worried that Carlie would turn him into the cops, he had no reason to fear.

True. But what I'm saying is that even though the police by and large are suspicious of Spidey, Carlie didn't. She was always depicted as considering Spider-Man one of the good guys, always giving him tips. Heck, she was one of the few people in the NYPD during the whole "spider-tracer killer" storyline running through Brand New Day who believed in Spidey's innocence. In that sense, Carlie, like Captain Stacy, Jean DeWolfe, and Detective Lamont was a cop who was also Spidey's ally.

Agreed, even though I hate Carlie, I don't buy the "but I didn't tell you to protect you," excuse, because everyone's in trouble by being around Spider-Man whether they know or not, the only reason somebody would be in MORE trouble because Spidey revealed himself is if they're a screw-up who won't know how to handle it, or they're routinely around mind-readers. Otherwise, the person who takes the brunt of the danger in such a revelation is Peter himself.

Now, I do think that there is a window of time where you can be in a relationship with someone and not tell them, because you do have to build up a certain trust level to confess such a big secret that not only potentially puts you in great danger, but also everyone you have any kind of relationship with (both romantic and family/friendships), if somebody turns out to be NOT worthy of the trust. I'd say if you're at a point with regular sleepovers and/or "I love yous" have been exchanged, you've crossed out of the window (I don't read the books, just scans, so I don't actually know if they're at either point yet)... the first because it puts you in the vicinity and thus danger a lot more than a friend or casual acquaintance would be, and the second because, well, I don't know, it just seems right... if you're not ready to follow it up with a "but there's something you need to know", you'd better be ready to follow it up with "...but for reasons I can't disclose, we can't be together."

And in this scene I think even if they weren't at that point, ultra-jerkiness comes in after the first lie gets demolished (considering Carlie knows he wasn't in the bedroom and isn't freaking out about OMG I WAS JUST IN THERE AND YOU WEREN'T THERE WHERE DID YOU COME FROM, but is just all calmly "yeah, I'm going to go.") and he keeps trying to lie. You don't have to necessarily tell the truth in that situation, even a "I've got things I can't tell you" is fine, but continuing to try to make up lame stories shows a fundamental lack of respect.

Hmm, I'm not sure how you would have to look exactly, but for some reason I can look at the panel where he's going, "Me? What'd I do?" and the dialogue mixed with his facial expression makes me think, "What a douche". :p

Yes. As shown last issue (and in a previous scans daily post I did) Mary Jane built-up a resistance to the virus because of living together with Peter and "sharing their toothbrushes" and what not for so many years. :-P

... wait WHAT? He unmasked himself to the Fantastic Four... he told Franklin about his own Uncle... and your telling me this weakens the spell? But... But... The Jackal knew, didn't he?

And what part of this spell said that it could keep ANYONE from finding out? how does that work? When someone gets close, like Aunt May doing lundary where Peter's Spidey-Jamas were left, do they get drowse and just forget what they're doing? And if this thing breaks, does that mean Aunt May will die? Making everything go back to they were before OMD... except Peter and MJ STILL weren't married?

The official explanation was no matter how many clues they saw, they would never be able to connect the dots; kind of a magic "Hey, why did I come into this room again, oh hey that sure is shiny" whammy

Gotta be honest, I actually admire and respect that she put two and two together like that. If I'm surprised at anything it's that she's that upset considering how she seemed to be such a fan of Spidey and all. I do get she's upset that he never told her. When it comes to a relationship, secrets coming out and lies being exposed tends to be pretty disastrous. So..no Carlie bashing for me today.

I know, right? Did someone decide to put of a shot of "uppity bitch" in their coffee this morning?

I mean, no questions of "What were you thinking?! Why did you lie to me?! Why would you think it'd be ok to hide this to me?", that would facilitate him actually being able to explain why he did what he did.

We like for scans_daily to be a feminist community. That means that such blatantly sexist insults as "uppity bitch" aren't welcome, even addressed to a fictional character. It's a reminder to a lot of people of the way our society will disempower and silence them, and disregard their anger in day to day conflicts just because they have a female body. Which is not cool.

This is your FIRST OFFICIAL WARNING. Please note that if you receive two further warnings you will lose the ability to post on this community.

I will not apologize for my comment, as I am a female myself and I was speaking from a completely female standpoint that the characterization of the character in that instance was deserving of the label I made.

However, I will not argue your ruling. I would just like to point out that it's too broad a statement to call something "blatantly sexist" when the context can be taken several different ways depending on your opinion. I certainly didn't mean it in a sexist way.

I am genuinely interested in knowing why this is being brought up now when I know I've seen comments on this very same character being made in a similar (if not worse) fashion, and no issues arose due to it, that I was aware of.

How is a phrase like "uppity bitch" ever not sexist? I'm not a mod or anything, but I am a woman. I'd really like to know. What is accomplished with a sexist slur that can't be accomplished by calling her, say: A total asshole, a judgmental idiot, an arrogant jackass, etc.

And I know that a Cooper is a really unpopular character on s_d, and I completely understand why. But if there are really s_d threads where people have been using sexist slurs right and left to complain about her, I'd like to see the links. Because I'm finding that a little hard to believe.

I'm not *trying* to be argumentative, but I can't help but be a little put off by being called sexist when I'm making a comment about a character that was never meant to be a sexist slur.....rather than observation. If a character is acting like an uppity bitch, it's not because I'm choosing what some people might think is a sexist comment (within my own sex, even). It's because that character is acting like an uppity bitch and I decided to use that description.

That would be like a dude being called sexist for calling another dude a dick.

"Dick" as an insult can't really be the same as "bitch" as an insult. I'm not saying that it's a particularly mature or well-reasoned thing to call a man, but seriously. Men as a gender rule over women, all other things being equal.

You add "uppity" and it just compounds the insult. "Uppity" is traditionally a slam used against an individual whom the powerful believe "does not know their proper place." IOW, against somebody who thinks their place in the status quo is lousy and rebels against it.

These term come with baggage. It's bad form to try and claim that you can use them as insults without bringing that baggage along with you.

If a character is acting like an uppity bitch, it's not because I'm choosing what some people might think is a sexist comment (within my own sex, even). It's because that character is acting like an uppity bitch

So the judgments of other people about what your behavior indicates is just ~what they might think~ but your judgment about the behavior of the character Carlie Cooper is some sort of absolute value.

Using the word "bitch" as a pejorative is never welcome in the community. Similarly, any gendered against women insults you can think of aren't okay.

You got a warning because the adjective "uppity" to "bitch" makes it even more sexist. (usually we only give a Mod Note reminding people not to do it when they use "bitch").

You would not have gotten a warning for "uppity dick". Mostly because men do not suffer from widespread discrimination and oppression just because they have a male body (though they may suffer from discrimination for mores specific reasons) and the expression "uppity dick" isn't built for the express purpose of reminding them their place as lower being.

If you're still confused, note that in our profile we link to a lot of documentation and resources about anti-oppression etc. which are what shapes our decisions on those sort of issues. You could learn more by following them.

I still don't see how it's sexist. Was it the uppity part? The bitch part?

If I'd called her an uppity dick, would I have gotten the warning anyway?

For real? Bitch is sexist. And uppity is a seriously charged word, with a racist, sexist AND classist history. It's kind of a trifecta of careful language use fail. That you're a woman doesn't make 'uppity bitch' any less sexist.

I'm not a feminist, so wrapping my head around a term that to some people is sexist while to me and people I know is just a regular insult (even used for guys) is kind of confusing. Especially when I'm a girl being told not to use supposedly gendered insults. I thought there were exceptions to the rule.

Again, is one girl calling another girl a bitch sexist? If I call a guy a dick, is that sexist?

If you call a man a "bitch," as an insult, you're likening him (or some of his qualities) to women. Ergo: it's still sexist. (The two of you may not give a crap about that, in the overall scheme of things. But it's probably inadvisable in spaces like this.)

I already explained above why calling a man a dick isn't sexist. Are you even reading people's responses at this point? Have you seen the links in the s_d profile, or the link schmevil specifically found for you?

Personally, I hate it when other women throw around the word "bitch" to describe women. I've tried really hard to stop doing it myself. It's called internalized misogyny. It runs down other women for the very qualities that we all share, because we're all women.

I had a boss last month who made my last temp assignment just about the worst employment experience I've ever had in thirty-plus years of wage work. I was more than happy to inform other people that I found her to be an abusive, compulsively-lying, manipulative, lizard-brained, stupid-ass bullying dirtbag. If nothing else, I figure that's at least a tad more original than just throwing misogynist slurs around. :p

I did read what they posted, btw. I don't agree with it and think it's kinda crap, but I will abide by the ruling. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to stir shit. I'm just trying to get a feel of what is going on.

I'm not trying to be sexist. I just always use the term "bitch" as a way of saying "Hey, you're being a absolute asshat. It's just easier to say you're being a bitch.". I've used the term often around my fellow female friends without issue. I never thought of it as being anything misogynistic in the current time we live in. because I thought people had grown past that. (not meant as a jab to anyone here...I'm really just saying that)

So what I should have said is that Carlie is being a self-righteous pissant, right?

There's something ironic about saying this on a thread about Peter Parker, the dude who (when written well) was legendary for wanting to do the right thing, no matter how far from "easy" it was for him. But, yeah. In short: You know now that most woman posters on s_d have different standards about acceptable speech than your real-life friends, and in this context, your second version of your issues with a fictional female character are going to go over better than your first version did.

I encourage everyone out there to find work in a field rife with unsafe conditions, tons of filth, low pay, brutal hours, a hellish commute, contradictory instructions, employers so paranoid about petty theft that they make the security people at Fort Knox look laid-back, and numerous cockroaches* (both living and dead).

If that doesn't bring out your creative side vis-a-vis profanity, nothing will. ;)

Is it? I've wondered about that myself. What I've usually heard from people is that in the literal sense: a douche is an unnecessary object that performs an unneeded function. That's supposed to be the source of the insult: You're useless. You're uncalled for. You're unwanted.

But if that one's fallen out of favor because people think it has woman-exclusive overtones (guys were never told by advertising to pour dangerous chemicals in/on their genitalia to stay "fresh"), I'd be happy to find something else. Because it is pretty overused, if nothing else.

Bitch is always sexist, whether it's directed to a woman or man, or used by a woman or man. There's a sense in which it can be reclaimed "HBIC" or "fierce bitch" but even those usages aren't uncontested. So like, I'm not personally bothered by girls calling each other bitch in a friendly way, but I am bothered by girls calling each other bitches as a way to insult each other.

If you call a guy a dick, it's not sexist. It's a gendered insult but it's not about denigrating a guy for being a guy (ew!). It simply doesn't have the same weight or history behind it.

All right. First intent and result are two different things. So are the speaker and the message. You may say something without meaning for it to come across as sexist; but it can still be seen as sexist because of the history and background of the words. I never said you were sexist. I said what you said was.

And it was. cleome45 makes a great job of explaining why. "Uppity bitch" is an expression that has a strongly misogynist connotation because it implies that women shouldn't speak out of turn and that if they do dare voice disagreement against men, then they are worthy of being insulted.

Because no one in the Mod team is a mind reader, we can never judge based on intent, we have to make do with people they say, and what can be reasonably inferred from it, according to the rules and ethos of the community.

If you've seen some equally grievous insults against a female character in the past that we failed to mod, I would be thankful if you sent us a PM or e-mail pointing it out to the mod team. We are not omniscient and sometimes we miss things.

I even might have been okay with Carly's reaction here from a character who had ever actually appeared to give a shit about Pete but repeated instances written by multiple writers have made it clear that Carly's response to every possible situation is to be as completely judgmental and dismissive as possible towards anybody who isn't her.

Founded by girl geeks and members of the slash fandom, scans_daily strives to provide an atmosphere which is LGBTQ-friendly, anti-racist, anti-ableist, woman-friendly and otherwise discrimination and harassment free.

Bottom line: If slash, feminism or anti-oppressive practice makes you react negatively, scans_daily is probably not for you.